I understand shot placement is key, but that taken out of the equation, which is more important to have, a fast and light or slower and heavier? If both round were to strike similar target at the same area which round would do more damage?

You have to think about it like C3 was talking about. How much of a wound channel is the round itself creating?

The 5.7mm is a really popular round right now. I honestly don't know why, but it is.

This thing launches with a speed of something like 2,300 feet per second for their 31 grain (heavy) round.

The problem is the thing is moving so fast it doesn't have time to expand as it zips right through the target, thus the wound channel is small, just slightly bigger than the round itself.

This was a problem that the Rangers and DELTA had in Mogadishu. Their small, fast moving 5.56mm rounds were going all the through the non armored population that was high on khat, thus when they were hit, they just kept on running and were not "put down".

He's a question for yah. Would you rather be hit with a fast moving piece of bamboo? Or a slower baseball bat?

I understand shot placement is key, but that taken out of the equation, which is more important to have, a fast and light or slower and heavier? If both round were to strike similar target at the same area which round would do more damage?

Ya know, I don't have the answer for that. But, there is a great picture floating around the interwebz. I'll see if I can find it for ya. It can help you decide for yourself, in some way.

Here you go. Notice the wound channels. Expect the temporary wound channel to be around 1/8-1/4 larger than the permanent wound channels. 12" is a standard placed needed depth of penetration to hit vital organs. As you can see, they are all quite impressive except the heavier 9mm, and even then, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of it.

I read that the 5.7mm starts to "tumble" after it enters the target. To me that sounds like a pretty vicious round...

Okay, assuming that is true. And I haven't seen this proven, so we are just going on the assumption that it does tumble.

It's moving at over 2000 feet per second when it hits you. How wide is the average human chest? 12"? 18"

Say 2 feet wide, and the 5.7mm round hits at 2000 feet per second, but instantly reduces speed because of resistance and "tumbling".

That means it takes .0005 of a second to travel the first 12 inches, and assuming it's velocity is cut in half to 1,000 feet per second, it takes another .001 of a second to get to the other side of the 24 inch fleshy thing.

That does not leave a lot of time to develop a gaping wound channel. Almost none actually. You only hope is it hits bone and breaks into a million shards.

I wish Sebbie was here. That gal's mind is out of this world brilliant and I know she would have a formula that would show all the possibilities. Maybe I'll PM her.

If it was that simple we would not have a dozen different SD cartridges and hundreds of different loadings. Unfortunately:

F =/= combat effectiveness

So your equation, while true, is irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by c3shooter

It is actually a phenomenon called a temporary wound channel-

can you point to any research that supports this? Everything I have read indicates that the temporary wound channel only becomes a significant mechanism when bullet velocities reach 2000-3000FPS which is much greater than most handguns are capable off. It's more a rifle wounding mechanism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunback

A well placed 22 shot can do just as much if not more damage then larger calibers

Unfortunately "surgical precision" and "life or death" situations are mutually incomparable. A shot to the heart, spine or brain with any round might be equally effective. However a general COM hit with a .45ACP is much more likely to stop a fight than general COM hit with a .22 is.

If it was that simple we would not have a dozen different SD cartridges and hundreds of different loadings. Unfortunately:

F =/= combat effectiveness

So your equation, while true, is irrelevant.

it is THAT simple!

BUT, with that said, there ARE varyin factors that play a role in the projectiles' "kill" efficiency.........
1. clothing (bein the more important)
2. placement - soft tissue vs bone, or a combination
3. distance to target
4. barrel length
5. etc
6. etc

so it IS relevant in many aspects. the equation ONLY imparts the knowledge of HOW and WHY. it does not take into account all the outside factors, 4 of which i listed above. take your pick on many others that can affect projectile performance. HELL, i didn't even mention FMJ vs HP vs SP. EVERYONE of these projectiles will REVELANTLY use the equation, BUT due to their make-up and INTENDED PURPOSE OF DESIGN, they WILL NOT give the same results on impact (as compared to one another).

__________________
"they may get me in a rush, but not before i turn your head into a canoe....." -Kurt Russell (Wyatt Earp) in Tombstone